Vance and the imperial president
J.D. Vance thinks Trump should ignore Supreme Court decisions he does not like. He believes the Supreme Court’s right of ‘judicial review’ — now 221 years old — should be discarded if the president does not like the judicial branch’s opinion. It is sad and terrifying that a US Senator needs a refresher course in constitutional checks and balances — a political philosophy introduced in 4th grade and reinforced in high school civics classes.
Vance should brush up on The Federalist Papers. There he would find James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay explaining their judgment that a strong national government must have built-in restraints: “You must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Vance says the Supreme Court is irrelevant
In September 2021, as he was gearing up for his run for a US Senate seat, Vance spoke with conservative podcast host Jack Murphy. In the interview, Vance urged Trump to fire "every civil servant" in the administration and replace them during a second term while saying he should ignore any Supreme Court ruling ordering him to stop:
"I think that what Trump should do, like if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts, because you will get taken to court, and then when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say the Chief Justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it."
Vance’s position is “make me”. This playground challenge is hardly what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. Although Benjamin Franklin presciently realized there would be Jacksons, Trumps, and Vances in America’s future when he said the new nation would be "A republic if you can keep it."
Stephanopoulos grills Vance
On Sunday morning, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Vance about his 2021 statement,
“Fire everyone in the government then defy the Supreme Court? You think it’s OK for the president to fire the Supreme Court?”
Vance replied by denying he had said what he had said.
"No George, I didn't say fire everyone in the government. I said replace the midlevel bureaucrats with people who are responsive to the administration.”
Stephanopoulos jumped in to remind Vance he had said just that:
“You said ‘fire every civil servant in the administrative state’.”
(Aside: I wish George had also asked JD how an incoming president would replace 100,000s mid-level bureaucrats every four or eight years. There are 2.8 million total federal civil servants — presumably, many are mid-level)
Vance ignored Stephanopoulos and went to a favorite MAGA talking point:
"We have a major problem here with administrators and bureaucrats in the government who don’t respond to the elected branches.”
He then offered an example of this supposed bureaucratic undermining of the president:
“Let’s just give one very real-world example of this: in 2019, Donald Trump having defeated ISIS said, “We should redeploy our troops in Syria and Jordan out of the region.” You had multiple members of the Defense Department bureaucracy who fought him on that. So, what happened? We have sitting ducks in the Levant, three of whom just got killed because the bureaucrats aren’t listening to the political branches."
The bullshit is running deep. First, Vance offers no evidence for his far-fetched claim that the actions of recalcitrant defense bureaucrats in 2019 led to the deaths of American troops more than four years later. Second, the president can fire generals. Truman fired McArthur. So Vance should ask why Trump did not fire whoever disobeyed him in 2019.
Vance then offered some more MAGA kvetching about bureaucrats thwarting presidents. After which Stephanopoulos asked:
“The Constitution also says the president must abide by legitimate Supreme Court rulings, doesn’t it?”
Vance responded with an unprecedented and absurd scenario.
“The Constitution says that the Supreme Court can make rulings, but if the Supreme Court — and look, I hope that they would not do this — but if the Supreme Court said that the president can’t fire a general, that would be an illegitimate ruling, and the president has to have Article 2 prerogative under the Constitution to actually run the military as he sees fit. This is just basic constitutional legitimacy. You’re talking about a hypothetical where the Supreme Court tries to run the military. I don’t think that’s going to happen."
The US has had conservative and liberal Courts. None of them has come close to suggesting that the Chief Executive cannot fire a general. Article 2 Section 2 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” For the Supreme Court to ignore that clear proclamation five Justices would have to agree. Likely? I would not bet on it.
Even Vance acknowledges that he is channeling a small child’s ability to create Rube Goldberg scenarios that have no basis in reality, “I don’t think that’s going to happen.” He is merely using his “hypothetical” to avoid justifying his claim that the president can ignore the Supreme Court.
Stephanopoulos kicks Vance in the ass
Stephanopoulos did not let him get away with it, saying:
“You didn't say military in your answer.”
George then slammed the door in JD’s face:
“You made it very clear, the president can defy the Supreme Court. Thanks for your time this morning.”
Vance was left spluttering:
“No, no, no, George.”
Then ABC cut JD’s mic off. ‘Bye Felicia.
For the video click HERE
